QueenZone discussion #770982
Mercury and Me Jim HuttonMercury and Me Jim Hutton
| Sicmot 24.04.2006 07:59 |
Whats the difference between first and second edition? Im buying the first edition.. should I avoid it and get the second edition? |
| Serry... 24.04.2006 10:37 |
Was that s**t re-issued?! Oh my God... |
| Micrówave 24.04.2006 12:14 |
I hear the editor did a "crappy" job. |
| inmsthebest 25.04.2006 17:19 |
Serry... wrote: Was that s**t re-issued?! Oh my God...Serry, why did you say it's a shit? I haven't read that yet. Is it so bad? Thanks, I don't want to waste my money if it's a bad book, not worth the price. |
| Serry... 26.04.2006 11:08 |
If you want to know more about about very private life of Freddie or just interesting in knowing more about gay's relationships - then that's a good book. |
| Sicmot 26.04.2006 13:11 |
Serry... wrote: If you want to know more about about very private life of Freddie or just interesting in knowing more about gay's relationships - then that's a good book.I dont give a shit if it matters to you only in those aspects.. to me it's hindsight to one reality false or not, there's always the human touch and perception by Jim's in this case to illuminate how he felt things.. apart what U might think of him as human being or his motives for doing it.. To me the book represents one scoop to Freddies life, and if U discust the gay ways to reproduce it, its your choise, for me it's the final chapter for what I have pictured of Freddie, the personal way. fill in the emotional/momential gaps other publications/stuff hasnt been able to fullfill. |
| Serry... 26.04.2006 13:46 |
If Freddie wanted to show his life in such way - he could do it by himself... But he didn't, it's interesting to know why? Oh yes, you probably don't give shit about it... |
| Sicmot 26.04.2006 15:00 |
Serry... wrote: If Freddie wanted to show his life in such way - he could do it by himself... But he didn't, it's interesting to know why? Oh yes, you probably don't give shit about it...Yes, I dont in that sence, cos like Freddie said more than once "nothing really matters". I dont think he himself gave a damm whether his mundane life is open and wide, cos he's dead and all that was left behind him is now irrelevant. When youre dead you dont think of your earthly legacy. U live for quite something else. For most of you this world is absolute, and the events are definitives for good or bad. |
| DrCari 26.04.2006 17:28 |
I found Hutton's book to be a self serving piece of crap writing. Hutton isn't exactly what I would call literate. Instead I recommend: Peter Freestone's book about his years as Queen's and later Freddie's personal assistant is a great read. Freestone tells great stories with class and preserves Freddie's dignity while still showing the reader the struggle Freddie endured toward the end of his illness. .....UNLIKE Hutton who artlessly describes every disgusting detail of Freddie's sickroom/deathbed moments of incontinence. Hutton effectively robs Freddie of any dignity and respect by writing all those embarrassing physical things that WE OURSELVES would never want broadcast if we were ill and dying. |
| inmsthebest 28.04.2006 08:05 |
Serry... wrote: If you want to know more about about very private life of Freddie or just interesting in knowing more about gay's relationships - then that's a good book.Then, what book should you recommend about Freddie?. No, I'm not interested in gay relationships, just the life of the man and creative processes within the band. |
| inmsthebest 29.04.2006 06:54 |
DrCari wrote: I found Hutton's book to be a self serving piece of crap writing. Hutton isn't exactly what I would call literate. Instead I recommend: Peter Freestone's book about his years as Queen's and later Freddie's personal assistant is a great read. Freestone tells great stories with class and preserves Freddie's dignity while still showing the reader the struggle Freddie endured toward the end of his illness. .....UNLIKE Hutton who artlessly describes every disgusting detail of Freddie's sickroom/deathbed moments of incontinence. Hutton effectively robs Freddie of any dignity and respect by writing all those embarrassing physical things that WE OURSELVES would never want broadcast if we were ill and dying.But I didn't like Phoebe's book at all...:( I found it dull and sometimes boring, and some of the things he said...hmmm, I don't know, to me it looked like a half truth. Though I quite enjoyed the story with Montserrat. |
| Bambi 30.04.2006 00:00 |
I read freestones book and agree it was written in a respective manner,freddie was human. also a good read is Queen the early years by mark Hodkinson, It starts at the beginning for each band member, a short bio how they got together ect, no trash or ugly stories just four guys who pursued a dream. |
| RETROLOVE 30.04.2006 02:00 |
DrCari wrote: I found Hutton's book to be a self serving piece of crap writing. Hutton isn't exactly what I would call literate. Instead I recommend: Peter Freestone's book about his years as Queen's and later Freddie's personal assistant is a great read. Freestone tells great stories with class and preserves Freddie's dignity while still showing the reader the struggle Freddie endured toward the end of his illness. .....UNLIKE Hutton who artlessly describes every disgusting detail of Freddie's sickroom/deathbed moments of incontinence. Hutton effectively robs Freddie of any dignity and respect by writing all those embarrassing physical things that WE OURSELVES would never want broadcast if we were ill and dying.Yeah- I read some chapters from his book, and let me tell you, it was so damn tear jerking, man, that man was in PAIN before he died...AIDS is no joke!!!!! It literally tore his system down!!! His lover did get VERY detailed!!!!! |
| bitesthedust 30.04.2006 04:11 |
I've read Peter Freestone's book, and whilst it does get a bit repetitive at times ("We were not amused."), it portrays Freddie in a positive light and shows respect for his life and achievements. However, I haven't read Jim Hutton's book but have heard that it does into intimate details about his sexuality.....which isn't something that interests me but both books draw from their personal experiences of time spent with Freddie, so I shouldn't expect anything else? |
| ANAGRAMER 30.04.2006 05:02 |
Surprised there's a demand for reprint. Hutton's book is a catalogue of half-truths that don't stand-up to scrutiny - eg - he was well-aware of David Bowie but claimed not to recognise 'Freddie-thingy' in 1984 - I would suggest that that is damn near impossible - ANYBODY who listened to music at that time (he was a barber afterall - I'm sure the radio was never off!) MUST have been aware of who's who. The book described in lavish detail what gifts were exchanged, lavish dinners and petty squabbles - not worth your money. Do we really need to know about the coffee tables and flower arrangements!! An example: 'Freddie gave me this, I gave that to Freddie but couldn't afford what I really wanted to give him, but he thought that what I gave him was lovely. I made him a coffee table. He loves me more than Mary. We went to Ibiza, I went 1st class. Mary went in cargo - she asked for some of my water - what a cheek!! I wore the same shirt as Freddie. I'm his favourite!!' Mary Austin is criticised severely for her attitude towards Freddie's wealth, it is noteworthy that she NEVER produces a tome such as this and in her very occasional interviews is honest, articulate and discreet. Do yourselves a favour and miss this book - I'm embarassed to admit that I read it - complete waste of a day! Anybody want my copy or shall I just use it for toilet paper? |
| Sicmot 30.04.2006 08:09 |
ANAGRAMER wrote: Surprised there's a demand for reprint. Hutton's book is a catalogue of half-truths that don't stand-up to scrutiny - eg - he was well-aware of David Bowie but claimed not to recognise 'Freddie-thingy' in 1984 - I would suggest that that is damn near impossible - ANYBODY who listened to music at that time (he was a barber afterall - I'm sure the radio was never off!) MUST have been aware of who's who. The book described in lavish detail what gifts were exchanged, lavish dinners and petty squabbles - not worth your money. Do we really need to know about the coffee tables and flower arrangements!! An example: 'Freddie gave me this, I gave that to Freddie but couldn't afford what I really wanted to give him, but he thought that what I gave him was lovely. I made him a coffee table. He loves me more than Mary. We went to Ibiza, I went 1st class. Mary went in cargo - she asked for some of my water - what a cheek!! I wore the same shirt as Freddie. I'm his favourite!!' Mary Austin is criticised severely for her attitude towards Freddie's wealth, it is noteworthy that she NEVER produces a tome such as this and in her very occasional interviews is honest, articulate and discreet. Do yourselves a favour and miss this book - I'm embarassed to admit that I read it - complete waste of a day! Anybody want my copy or shall I just use it for toilet paper?Please could U send it to me if I pay the postage? |
| Sicmot 30.04.2006 08:12 |
Sicmot wrote:ANAGRAMER wrote: Surprised there's a demand for reprint. Hutton's book is a catalogue of half-truths that don't stand-up to scrutiny - eg - he was well-aware of David Bowie but claimed not to recognise 'Freddie-thingy' in 1984 - I would suggest that that is damn near impossible - ANYBODY who listened to music at that time (he was a barber afterall - I'm sure the radio was never off!) MUST have been aware of who's who. The book described in lavish detail what gifts were exchanged, lavish dinners and petty squabbles - not worth your money. Do we really need to know about the coffee tables and flower arrangements!! An example: 'Freddie gave me this, I gave that to Freddie but couldn't afford what I really wanted to give him, but he thought that what I gave him was lovely. I made him a coffee table. He loves me more than Mary. We went to Ibiza, I went 1st class. Mary went in cargo - she asked for some of my water - what a cheek!! I wore the same shirt as Freddie. I'm his favourite!!' Mary Austin is criticised severely for her attitude towards Freddie's wealth, it is noteworthy that she NEVER produces a tome such as this and in her very occasional interviews is honest, articulate and discreet. Do yourselves a favour and miss this book - I'm embarassed to admit that I read it - complete waste of a day! Anybody want my copy or shall I just use it for toilet paper?Please could U send it to me if I pay the postage? If so, send me mail for address @ Alexander1976@hotmail.com |
| inmsthebest 30.04.2006 14:04 |
Thanks everyone for your comments, I think I won't get Hutton's book, I am not really interested in those certain disgusting details.
Sicmot wrote:LOL, are you serious?Sicmot wrote:ANAGRAMER wrote: Surprised there's a demand for reprint. Hutton's book is a catalogue of half-truths that don't stand-up to scrutiny - eg - he was well-aware of David Bowie but claimed not to recognise 'Freddie-thingy' in 1984 - I would suggest that that is damn near impossible - ANYBODY who listened to music at that time (he was a barber afterall - I'm sure the radio was never off!) MUST have been aware of who's who. The book described in lavish detail what gifts were exchanged, lavish dinners and petty squabbles - not worth your money. Do we really need to know about the coffee tables and flower arrangements!! An example: 'Freddie gave me this, I gave that to Freddie but couldn't afford what I really wanted to give him, but he thought that what I gave him was lovely. I made him a coffee table. He loves me more than Mary. We went to Ibiza, I went 1st class. Mary went in cargo - she asked for some of my water - what a cheek!! I wore the same shirt as Freddie. I'm his favourite!!' Mary Austin is criticised severely for her attitude towards Freddie's wealth, it is noteworthy that she NEVER produces a tome such as this and in her very occasional interviews is honest, articulate and discreet. Do yourselves a favour and miss this book - I'm embarassed to admit that I read it - complete waste of a day! Anybody want my copy or shall I just use it for toilet paper?Please could U send it to me if I pay the postage? If so, send me mail for address @ Alexander1976@hotmail.com |
| Sicmot 01.05.2006 14:16 |
Yes I most certainly am |
| KillerQueen1429 01.05.2006 23:13 |
i enjoyed the book and was brought to tears at the end , i thought it was a great way to show us the personal side of Freddie that not many ppl knew or seen.... and as for the details of his illness well i think Jim was makin aware the fact how brave he was to the end and exactly how devasting this disease really is. |
| calcium 01.05.2006 23:45 |
ANAGRAMER wrote: Surprised there's a demand for reprint. Hutton's book is a catalogue of half-truths that don't stand-up to scrutiny - eg - he was well-aware of David Bowie but claimed not to recognise 'Freddie-thingy' in 1984 - I would suggest that that is damn near impossible - ANYBODY who listened to music at that time (he was a barber afterall - I'm sure the radio was never off!) MUST have been aware of who's who. The book described in lavish detail what gifts were exchanged, lavish dinners and petty squabbles - not worth your money. Do we really need to know about the coffee tables and flower arrangements!! An example: 'Freddie gave me this, I gave that to Freddie but couldn't afford what I really wanted to give him, but he thought that what I gave him was lovely. I made him a coffee table. He loves me more than Mary. We went to Ibiza, I went 1st class. Mary went in cargo - she asked for some of my water - what a cheek!! I wore the same shirt as Freddie. I'm his favourite!!' Mary Austin is criticised severely for her attitude towards Freddie's wealth, it is noteworthy that she NEVER produces a tome such as this and in her very occasional interviews is honest, articulate and discreet. Do yourselves a favour and miss this book - I'm embarassed to admit that I read it - complete waste of a day! Anybody want my copy or shall I just use it for toilet paper?Well said. Eesh, Hutton is such a piece of shit.. |
| RETROLOVE 01.05.2006 23:46 |
KillerQueen1429 wrote: i enjoyed the book and was brought to tears at the end , i thought it was a great way to show us the personal side of Freddie that not many ppl knew or seen.... and as for the details of his illness well i think Jim was makin aware the fact how brave he was to the end and exactly how devasting this disease really is.Straight up tearjerker!!! |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.05.2006 09:15 |
I paid an obscene amount of money for this book and while I was reading it, I kept wondering what I was missing. Was this book considered a good book? It seemed so self-serving. As if Jim needed to somehow prove he was an important part of Freddie's life. That's how it sounded to me. I don't think it painted a very nice picture of Freddie. I know he wasn't near perfect, but when you love someone, I think you 'see' them in a much better way than Jim described. He comes off as angry and arrogant - not needing Freddie or his wealth, yet constantly being teased and tortured by it. It's been a while since I've read it, but that's the overall feeling I'm left with. I wouldn't recomend buying it unles you simply want to own everything and anything about Freddie Mercury. |
| marivic94015 31.05.2006 16:25 |
Hi, Do you still have this book that you want to dispose? If you do, can I have it if you're no longer interested. I'm a die hard Freddie Mercury fan and I would love to read anything about him, good or bad. I don't care about the kind of person he's been but I honestly think that he's the greatest performer on earth and that's all that matters to me. Thank you. |
| deleted user 31.05.2006 16:29 |
inmsthebest wrote:No no, its really good, near the end it makes you cry it has really sad and very rare pictures of Freddie,before he couldnt walk and died, they are in his garden that's all I'm telling you!Buy the book, you have to read it before you think its s**t ;)Serry... wrote: Was that s**t re-issued?! Oh my God...Serry, why did you say it's a shit? I haven't read that yet. Is it so bad? Thanks, I don't want to waste my money if it's a bad book, not worth the price. |
| deleted user 31.05.2006 16:31 |
Serry... wrote: If you want to know more about about very private life of Freddie or just interesting in knowing more about gay's relationships - then that's a good book.Yeah! |
| mayniac316 31.05.2006 22:40 |
While we're on the subject of this book, I'd just like to add my two cents. I have only read about a chapter, where Jim described Freddie's last days. It embarassed me to read what he had wrote. What Jim wrote was very personal, and should not have been printed for the whole world to read about. I've lived with people who were extremely ill like Freddie, and I can tell you I saw pretty much the same things Jim did with Freddie. You don't share that stuff. It's not right. |
| luthorn 31.05.2006 23:00 |
<font color=9900CC>mayniac316 wrote: While we're on the subject of this book, I'd just like to add my two cents. I have only read about a chapter, where Jim described Freddie's last days. It embarassed me to read what he had wrote. What Jim wrote was very personal, and should not have been printed for the whole world to read about. I've lived with people who were extremely ill like Freddie, and I can tell you I saw pretty much the same things Jim did with Freddie. You don't share that stuff. It's not right.Amen to that |
| deleted user 01.06.2006 11:01 |
<font color=9900CC>mayniac316 wrote: While we're on the subject of this book, I'd just like to add my two cents. I have only read about a chapter, where Jim described Freddie's last days. It embarassed me to read what he had wrote. What Jim wrote was very personal, and should not have been printed for the whole world to read about. I've lived with people who were extremely ill like Freddie, and I can tell you I saw pretty much the same things Jim did with Freddie. You don't share that stuff. It's not right.That's so true! Freddie wouldn't have liked it to have such things about his disease be written in a book! Although, it shows well what a terrible disease aids is. People should be aware of that. Anyway, I really hated the last part, it made me cry and I felt terrible after reading it. I'm not considering to read it again. |
| rocks. 01.06.2006 19:11 |
bitesthedust<br><h6> The QZ gentleman... wrote: I've read Peter Freestone's book, and whilst it does get a bit repetitive at times ("We were not amused.")Hah, those parts amused ME! :D |
| Freddie's #1 Fan Forever 01.06.2006 20:18 |
I thought that the "Mercury and Me" book was pretty good. Even though some people say that it is too revealing, it is not nearly as bad as it could have been. He does not go into great detail about Freddie's illness. I am sure that there are many things that he could have put in that are not there. I also think that Freddie did really love Jim. I suspect that his reason for giving so much of his money to his ex-girlfriend instead involves his desire to keep his gay identity somewhat hidden from both his parents and the public. But if you read the book, Freddie called Jim his husband and died while wearing a wedding band that Jim gave him. They really did love each other, and it is too bad that a lot of Queen fans are too homophobic to be able to recognize this. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 01.06.2006 20:56 |
Queenslut wrote: They really did love each other, and it is too bad that a lot of Queen fans are too homophobic to be able to recognize this.You're entitled to your opinion, but personally speaking, my dislike of this book and Jim's attitude within it has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia and all to do with the fact and the way he divulged Freddie's most private moments within the book. As for Mary, she was a lot more than Freddie's ex-girlfriend. She was the one person he considered his TRUE friend and in fact referred to his relationship with her as 'very much a marriage'. Obviously not in the physical sense, but certainly in the emotional sense. He loved and trusted her more than anyone, and since she has yet to write about Freddie's most private moments, I'd say he was a very good judge of character. |
| Freddie's #1 Fan Forever 02.06.2006 10:13 |
There are about three things in the "Mercury and Me" book that should have been edited out. Besides that, it is a good book if you want to know more about Freddie. |
| FreMe 02.06.2006 10:48 |
To me, this book sounds terrible.. What is it, that Hutton says about Freddie, in the parts where he´s close to death?? |
| Scott_Mercury 02.06.2006 11:42 |
Queenslut wrote: Freddie called Jim his husband and died while wearing a wedding band that Jim gave him. They really did love each other, and it is too bad that a lot of Queen fans are too homophobic to be able to recognize this.How many Queen fans have you ran into that weren't aware or accepting of Freddie's gayness? If they couldn't get over the Freddie is gay thing, then I am going to guess they weren't really Queen fans? maybe? Hell, even the biggest homophobes I know who are fully aware that Freddie was a old Queen, don't dispute the fact that he is a one of the greatest frontmen ever. |
| louvox 02.06.2006 16:50 |
Don't bother with that book, it's garbage! Jim Hutton going on and on about him self! Louis |
| deleted user 02.06.2006 16:55 |
Scott_Mercury wrote:Got krimatid(spelling wrong)with the ring on :) and Jim put a teddy bear in the bag when Freddie got zipped up, when he died (Garden Lodge 24.11.1991)Queenslut wrote: Freddie called Jim his husband and died while wearing a wedding band that Jim gave him. They really did love each other, and it is too bad that a lot of Queen fans are too homophobic to be able to recognize this.How many Queen fans have you ran into that weren't aware or accepting of Freddie's gayness? If they couldn't get over the Freddie is gay thing, then I am going to guess they weren't really Queen fans? maybe? Hell, even the biggest homophobes I know who are fully aware that Freddie was a old Queen, don't dispute the fact that he is a one of the greatest frontmen ever. |
| rocks. 02.06.2006 20:03 |
<font color="#CC66FF">xloveofmylifex wrote:Ahh, that was in ol' Pheobe's book wasnt it :)Scott_Mercury wrote:Got krimatid(spelling wrong)with the ring on :) and Jim put a teddy bear in the bag when Freddie got zipped up, when he died (Garden Lodge 24.11.1991)Queenslut wrote: Freddie called Jim his husband and died while wearing a wedding band that Jim gave him. They really did love each other, and it is too bad that a lot of Queen fans are too homophobic to be able to recognize this.How many Queen fans have you ran into that weren't aware or accepting of Freddie's gayness? If they couldn't get over the Freddie is gay thing, then I am going to guess they weren't really Queen fans? maybe? Hell, even the biggest homophobes I know who are fully aware that Freddie was a old Queen, don't dispute the fact that he is a one of the greatest frontmen ever. |
| mayniac316 02.06.2006 20:50 |
Aw, a teddy bear! I wish I could've done that for my Mom, but I was too young. |
| FreMe 03.06.2006 05:22 |
<font color=9900CC>mayniac316 wrote: Aw, a teddy bear! I wish I could've done that for my Mom, but I was too young.Im sorry about you´re mom.. How old were you? :/ |
| deleted user 03.06.2006 06:52 |
<font color=9900CC>mayniac316 wrote: Aw, a teddy bear! I wish I could've done that for my Mom, but I was too young.Aww your mum died, sorry *bows head*-*says prayer* 'Our father who art in heaven, hallowed thee by name, thy kingdom come as it is in heaven, give us this daily bread and forgive us our trespasses and lead us not into temptation for Jesus christ the lord forever and ever AMEN' :( God bless your mum xxx Misses apart out..:s |
| mayniac316 03.06.2006 10:42 |
Aw, thank you guys for all your condolences :) And I was 7. Stupid cancer... >:( |
| rocks. 03.06.2006 10:43 |
Im sorry Mayniac *hugs* |
| FreMe 03.06.2006 15:21 |
WhatMustHeThink wrote: Im sorry Mayniac *hugs*Yeah me too *joins group-ug for Mainiac* |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 00:55 |
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever:. "Freddie called Jim his husband and died while wearing a wedding band that Jim gave him." Freddie called many of his boyfriend's "hubby" and "my husband". From David Minns thru Winnie Kirschberger. And there's no evidence Freddie was still wearing the wedding band. Jim lies many times in that book. Phoebe mentions a Teddy bear being put in the mortuary bag with Freddie, nothing about him wearing Jim's ring. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 00:56 |
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever:. "Freddie called Jim his husband and died while wearing a wedding band that Jim gave him." Freddie called many of his boyfriend's "hubby" and "my husband". From David Minns thru Winnie Kirschberger. And there's no evidence Freddie was still wearing the wedding band. Jim lies many times in that book. Phoebe mentions a Teddy bear being put in the mortuary bag with Freddie, nothing about him wearing Jim's ring. |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 05:50 |
link In the last years he used to wear a single piece of jewellery, a ring given him by Jim. He was still wearing it at the end of his life. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 06:00 |
RandomProcess2: Thanks for that clarification. Not sure that means literally the very day Freddie died, or during the last years ... at the end of his life. But we can agree to disagree on that point. Jim had to guilt Freddie into wearing the ring in the first place even though Freddie proudly wore Winnies ring publicly for two years. Even on stage at Live Aid. I'm pointing out that as he describes the body going into the bag, Phoebe does not mention the ring being on at that time. Just a Teddy Bear. . |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 06:30 |
Hi FreddieDearie, This is my suggestion. First, Don't waste your time to hate a dead man. You don't know "Ask-Phoebe" . It means you don't even try to understand Freddie at all. Second, Let Winnies rest in peace. The poor man also died from AIDS in the early 90's. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 06:41 |
RandomProcess2: First: No hate. Just posting the facts, mam. Second: Of course I know "Ask Phoebe". I had read that before. In fact he answers two of my questions in two separate blogs. FYI: The first Queen concert I attended was the summer of '75 in Boston, MA. Third:. Nothing Ive said prevents anyone from resting in peace. If anything would disturb someone peace in death it would be someone writing a book telling lurid details of my sexual appetite while my parents were still alive and full of lies to make themselves seem more important than they were, like Jim Hutton did. If only you had the same concern for Freddie in death as you do the man who betrayed him. ????? |
| Dougie 4 27.03.2019 06:53 |
I agree with Freddiedearie...Jim's book is simply not something Freddie himself would have liked to read...too much private and personal information divulged...Freddie wanted privacy and dignity as he lay dying and his boyfriend goes and broadcasts those very moments to the entire world...a major breach of trust |
| Kerryannaaa 27.03.2019 07:08 |
Completely agreed! Publishing a book full of such personal details, many of them proven to be inaccurate, is absolutely not something anyone (least of all, Freddie) would appreciate. It is the ultimate betrayal in my opinion. The ring has been made into such a big deal when Freddie was already wearing rings on the exact same finger whilst he was with someone Peter himself said Freddie referred to as his husband. |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 07:14 |
Hi Dougie 4, Do you think Freddie would like a biopic about his story? He would hate everything exposing his personal life. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 07:21 |
RandomProcess2, Dougie 4 , KerryAnnaa Maybe he would hate the biopic. I don't think anyone was discussing or defending the movie here. ?????????? Doesn't negate how Jim betrayed him. At least the biopic didn't tell details like what Freddies favorite anal sexual positions were or how he peed himself in bed as he died. WHILE Freddie's nparents were still alive? Freddie spent his whole life compartmentalizing his private sex life from his family life.... And then Jim writes that book so they can hear how their son liked to have anal sex??? |
| Kerryannaaa 27.03.2019 07:34 |
I am in no way defending the biopic. I think Freddie enjoyed his privacy far too much to approve of something detailing his life and personal relationships so intimately (and, similar to Jim's book, often inaccurately just to make it sell more) At least the movie didn't tell the story about how his so called loving partner watched him choke on some fruit on his deathbed until someone who possessed a bit more common sense came to help. What is to gain from telling that story except money? I could go on and on about how that book deeply offends me, and many other fans that I know. It's just sad. |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 07:37 |
Hi FreddieDearie, You think the book is lie. Please don't take it seriously. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 07:38 |
RandomProcess2, I take lies about Freddie seriously. Sue me. |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 07:48 |
Don't waste your time on it. You want to know Freddie real personal life. Spending your time to invest a time machine. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 07:55 |
I don't consider defending Freddie when he can't speak for himself a waste of time. Aren't YOU the one who claimed that not knowing "Ask Phoebe" meant not "trying to understand Freddie at all"? Thank you for admitting YOU don't care about understanding Freddie at all and that doing so is a waste of time. Somehow I'm not surprised. |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 08:07 |
Invading Freddie personal life to defend Freddie? |
| Dougie 4 27.03.2019 08:14 |
We are rightly very critical of Paul Prentert for selling that story about Freddie, and Freddie was so upset too. What Jim did was no different to Paul, in fact worse, because Freddie was more dependant on Jim in his last days and was not alive when the book was published...I do feel sorry for Freddie as a big fan of his to be honest |
| Dougie 4 27.03.2019 08:15 |
We are rightly very critical of Paul Prentert for selling that story about Freddie, and Freddie was so upset too. What Jim did was no different to Paul, in fact worse, because Freddie was more dependant on Jim in his last days and was not alive when the book was published...I do feel sorry for Freddie as a big fan of his to be honest |
| Dougie 4 27.03.2019 08:16 |
We are rightly very critical of Paul Prentert for selling that story about Freddie, and Freddie was so upset too. What Jim did was no different to Paul, in fact worse, because Freddie was more dependant on Jim in his last days and was not alive when Jim's book was published... |
| Invisible Woman 27.03.2019 08:17 |
@ FreddieDearie You have the rights to your opinion, of course. But you represent your opinion as facts. When you say Freddie never wanted to buy Jim a ring, you said what you liked. If you read Jim's book then you know that when Freddie saw that ring, he wanted buy it for Jim's birthday but it was not the right size. Later Jim bought it. I think Freddie would be disappointed if he bought something else. Jim also said in the book that after his ring had been damaged due to works in the garden, he was wearing it on special occasions. Ok, you say Jim lied and it's your opinion. I don't know why someone people so much wants to reduce love between Freddie and Jim. However, Jim was Freddie's choice and he wanted to be with him. If he didn't, they would not be together to the end. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 08:20 |
RandomProcess2, I'm not sure why you seem confused about why there's this attention towards and curiosity about Freddie Mercury on a Queen forum. Go figure!! Just correcting details Jim "mistold" about Freddie's personal life. I also think that correcting inaccurate historical, biographical info is important. :Shrug. Again, sue me. Since Jim already spewed the info, I'm pretty sure Freddie would prefer the record be set straignt for those who are genuinely interested in Freddie and truth in general But I thank you for your sage advice. LOL . |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 08:21 |
RandomProcess2, I'm not sure why you seem confused about why there's this attention towards and curiosity about Freddie Mercury on a Queen forum. Go figure!! Just correcting details Jim "mistold" about Freddie's personal life. I also think that correcting inaccurate historical, biographical info is important. :Shrug. Again, sue me. Since Jim already spewed the info, I'm pretty sure Freddie would prefer the record be set straignt for those who are genuinely interested in Freddie and truth in general But I thank you for your sage advice. LOL . |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 08:25 |
Invisible Woman, I agree that we are entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts. I have stated many facts here, not opinion. If you have any sources or links to disprove what Ive said, please feel free to share. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 08:51 |
"When you say Freddie never wanted to buy Jim a ring, you said what you liked. " No, whether I like that or not is beside the point. If Freddie WANTED to by Jim a wedding ring, he would have done so. He didn't. "If you read Jim's book then you know that when Freddie saw that ring, he wanted buy it for Jim's birthday but it was not the right size." If you had any knowledge about Cartier, particularly in London, you would know that Cartier could've/would've sized it immediately for Jim on the spot. Just as Jim did later on. "Later Jim bought it. I think Freddie would be disappointed if he bought something else. " No, Freddie made it clear he wanted to get him a bracelet. If Freddie expected he'd get the ring then he wouldn't have had to ask him later "what did you get". He would've asked "Did you get the ring"? "Jim also said in the book that after his ring had been damaged due to works in the garden, he was wearing it on special occasions. " So? Point is, there's no picture of him wearing a gold signet ring with a platinum top. "Ok, you say Jim lied and it's your opinion." No, it's based upon his own discrepancies throughout the book "I don't know why someone people so much wants to reduce love between Freddie and Jim. " Because TRUTH. "However, Jim was Freddie's choice and he wanted to be with him. If he didn't, they would not be together to the end." There's no proof Jim was Freddie's choice, or that they were together romantically to the end. What we DO know is: 1) Jim was someone Freddie picked up to make Winnie jealous. 2) Freddie stayed married to Winnie and continued to wear Winnie's ring over a year after Jim and Freddie hooked up. (May 12, 1986) 3) Freddie goes on tour June 7, 1986 3) Freddie knew he had AIDS in '86 because both Mary and members of the band have said he did.(Mary said he knew during the last tour and how difficult it was nothing to keep it secret and both Brian and Roger have said numerous times that now in hindsight, THEY believe he knew then too). 4) Freddie had a long history of feeling obligated and guilty towards his exes. Freddie would feel particularly responsible for Jim because he exposed him to AIDS . 5) Jim had to coax Freddie into wearing Jims ring. 6) Freddie LOVED personally shopping for and giving gifts. 7) Freddie never chose to buy Jim a wedding ring in return. 8) Had to go buy HIMSELF a signet ring. (supposedly). 9) We never saw that ring EVER. Thems facts mam, not opinion. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 08:55 |
Oops sorry for misnumbering my facts, (two '3's), but I trust you can follow along. (; |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 09:08 |
Please list out the reference from your fact. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 09:41 |
1) Jim was someone Freddie picked up to make Winnie jealous. Jim's book. 2). Jim's book says he didn't give Freddie NBiston until Sept 7, 1986 , Multiple sources from Phoebe's book and many more say Freddie and Winnie were together 1983. Numerous pictures of them together at that time. Freddie was wearing Winnies ring at his birthday party at Club Xenon 1984 . Freddie was wearing Winnies ring at Live Aid July 1995, Freddie was wearing Winnie's ring at the 1986 Montreux Golden Rose Pop Festival 3) Google the dates of their 1986 tour . Started June 7, 1986 3) Numerous interviews of Brian and Jim saying the believe Freddie knew he had AIDS during the last tour. Mary clearly says Freddie knew during the last tour during a radio interview in Mary Austin -- link "The last tour, he knew, and it was really hard work for him. Working through the emotional pain, KNOWING, that this was his last tour. Watching him walk off stage, you know, I feel pain now, and.. it's just that look, of him walking off, and I looked at him and he looked at me, and it's of that "knowing" that this has to be the last one." 4). Phoebe discusses Freddies guilt and feelings of obligations towards his exes all through his books. 5. Mercury and Me 6) Freddie's generosity and gift giving is infamous and is pretty much in every book ever written about him. 7) Mercury and Me 8) Mercury and Me 9) If you can find a picture of Jim wearing a wedding band or signet ring as described after January 1987. Lemme know. (I've searched. Jim is already wearing a signet ring on his left hand ring finger in June 85, before either gave any rings to one another, he's wearing the same ring in Sept 86 during Japan trip) Hope that's enough to get started with. If you have any disagreements with any of this, please provide YOUR OWN proof & sources. |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 09:58 |
Just correcting details Jim "mistold" about Freddie's personal life. If you want to correcting details, you shouldn't use Mercury and Me as reference. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 10:11 |
RandomProcess2 Ahhhhh, so now you ADMIT Jim's book is inaccurate and not believable? So the premise you had before seemed to be that Jim deserves the benefit of the doubt. Then when I go by YOUR premise suddenly that changes? Just using a reference YOU seem to be defending as accurate. If you want to agree that it isn't, ok by me!! THANKS FOR CONCEDING! What about the rest of the points? Are you able to provide your own sourcing to contradict, or do you have nothing of value of your own to offer? Can only find fault but are too cowardly to stand by your own assertions? |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 10:26 |
|
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 10:27 |
For the record, Pheobe and others have said that Freddie picked up Jim to make Winnie jealous. But not sure what benefit you think Jim gains for lying by telling people he was used to make Winnie jealous... But eeewkay. So now your assertions in regards to Jims book are now what??? "5)) Jim had to coax Freddie into wearing Jims ring. " Jim didn't have to coax Freddie into wearing the ring ... He just told the story to make himself look pathetic? 7) Freddie never chose to buy Jim a wedding ring in return. : Freddie DID choose to pick out and buy Jim a wedding ring, (even though he said he wanted to buy him a bracelet) but JIM didn't want anyone to know he did so fails to tell us about it in the book? 8) Had to go buy HIMSELF a signet ring. (supposedly). : So Jim tells us he had to buy his own ring.... Because he thought that would be a cool story even though it ONCE AGAIN makes him look pathetic? LOLOLOL |
| RandomProcess2 27.03.2019 10:29 |
You really want to know my point of view? I've suggested that spending your time to invent the time machine. As a outsider, you never know what happened in 30 ~ 50 years ago. About the fact you claimed, You just can't take Mercury & Me as a reference. It's really strange you think the book is lie and believing it. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 10:50 |
Knowledge is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate. ~ Unknown Only two out of my nine points depends primarily on M&M Please address the rest of the factual points I laid out and provide your own sources. P.S. You don't know whether I'm an outsider or have inside knowledge or what. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 11:15 |
Truth matters, and if you wish to react negatively to the truth or pretend it happened another way, that's a shame. If you think that truth and facts can not be determined through research, photographic evidence, circumstantial evidence, anecdotal evidence, historical evidence, analogical evidence, dates, timelines, book, journalism, character evidence, exculpatory evidence, inculpatory evidence, physical evidence, statistical evidence prima facie evidence, testimonial evidence, direct evidence, logic and inductive or deductive reasoning ... then you choose to live in perpetual ignorance and truth does not exist in your world. However not does in mine. Shrugging your shoulders and denying everything you don't wish to be true is intellectually lazy. Everyone here now sees that you've offered NOTHING to support your own POV except knee-jerk blind denial. |
| Invisible Woman 27.03.2019 12:14 |
@ FreddieDearie OK. I'm not from UK and my native language isn't English. But I like Queen and Freddie and their music. I like Jim and so what? All this what you said as a fact can be observed in other ways. For example: - You say " Mary said". So when she says something that's true. But when Jim says anything, you say " he lied". Why Freddie lived five years far from Mary (New York and Munich) and live six years with Jim? - Freddie likely used Winnie to make Jim jealous. - If Winnie was more important to Freddie than Jim why he was not with Winnie then. Or with somebody else? He later had AIDS but he had alternative for other choice and other people, with sex or without it. - If Freddie didn't want Jim's ring he wouldn't wore it. - Jim was with Freddie in Japan. Does the employer guide his barbers and gardeners to such a trip? And many more... But I don't intend to argue and respond to your every post. I searched images on Google and found this. Maybe photos doesn't so good but we can see that they wear rings. It's obvious that Jim's ring is different than ring of photos from Japan.  link |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 27.03.2019 16:41 |
FreddieDearie- I know who you are on instagram. You have taken your precious time on earth and decided to make several accounts dedicated to hating Jim- a man Freddie loved. This is some sort of mental illness and it isn't normal. You can ran all you want, but no one is going to change their mind. Jim wrote a book, and what he said was backed up by everyone that knew Freddie. You don't take your gardener to Japan. Why would he lie? Freddie had a series of boyfriends and Jim was the one he was with the longest. Mary worked for Freddie too. She also gave several paid interviews. When I brought this up with one of your Jim hating cohorts on instagram, she called me a "gutter whore" So take your hate elsewhere. Freddie loved Jim. You are not a fan if you spend your time hating a man he trusted and loved. |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 27.03.2019 16:43 |
Everyone here: FreddieDearie is a seriously ill woman who has several accounts on instagram dedicated to hating Jim. She now has several in this thread alone. DO NOT FEED HER. She is a sick individual that needs psychiatric help. |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 27.03.2019 16:43 |
Everyone here: FreddieDearie is a seriously ill woman who has several accounts on instagram dedicated to hating Jim. She now has several in this thread alone. DO NOT FEED HER. She is a sick individual that needs psychiatric help. |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 27.03.2019 16:43 |
Everyone here: FreddieDearie is a seriously ill woman who has several accounts on instagram dedicated to hating Jim. She now has several in this thread alone. DO NOT FEED HER. She is a sick individual that needs psychiatric help. |
| back.chat 27.03.2019 17:18 |
Low and behold, the Jim hate has entered QZ! Please stop it, Freddie was happy with Jim, why can't you accept that? |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 27.03.2019 17:24 |
Sorry for the multiple posts. It happens here |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 20:36 |
Invisible Woman. I already addressed that. That is the same signet ring Jim wore on his left hand in June of '85. And during the trip to Japan in 86. That ring has nothing to do with Freddie, sweetie. link link Secondly, he's wearing it on his left hand. That does not signal to gay men that you're in a gay committed in the 1980's relationship. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 21:13 |
Invisible woman, MarchOfTheLocdQueen, Sweetandtenderholligan, RandomProcess2 Two intellectually-honest tactics There are only two intellectually-honest debate tactics: 1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts 2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic That’s it. Simple! The dishonest list is much longer. Ignorance is not an opinion. It's just your ignorance of information. Just SOME of your Intellectually dishonest tactics here. 1. Ad hominem. This tells the listener/reader more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; When you have to resort to name calling you're showing everyone you don't have the necessary facts or logic to back up your claim. 2. Cult of personality: debater attempts to make the likability of each debate opponent the focus of the debate because he believes he is more likable than the opponent 3. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better. 4. Misrepresentation. Taking a quote or claim out of context so the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position. 5. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent. Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact. 6. Argument from intimidation 7. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” "Can' we all get along". 8. Claiming an intellectually-dishonest debate tactic is okay because the person using it is not debating you. If I say X is true, and you say it is not, you ARE debating me. 9. Claiming to “disagree” with non-opinion statements. "Agree to disagree" fallacy Users of intellectually-dishonest arguments often claim they just disagree and they are entitled to do so in all cases. False. You make a claim in a debate, you are indebted to prove it, or abandon your opinion. |
| Invisible Woman 27.03.2019 21:19 |
^ I think it's not the same ring, but let everyone see what thinks that see. Someone is wrong and someone is right. I certainly will not argue about it. Bye,bye. |
| indy19 27.03.2019 21:44 |
Hi Freddiedearie: Hmm. I certainly don't want to do much more in this, uhh, "debate" than point out two things: 2) Freddie stayed married to Winnie and continued to wear Winnie's ring over a year after Jim and Freddie hooked up. (May 12, 1986) -- I thought there was no "civil union/marriage" at the time, so what's with the "married to Winnie" bit? 5) Jim had to coax Freddie into wearing Jims ring. Where's this "factoid" from? I admit I'm not up on the "Freddie's lovers" lore, so someone point me to it, please? My takeaway from these posts though is that you seem to be way more inclined to like Winnie the abuser and hate Jim the caretaker. What gives? |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 22:00 |
Invisible Woman... To address your questions, RESPECTFULLY, point by point - You say " Mary said". . NO,I said Mary said AND backed it up with the bands agreement, said in many, interviews that Freddie know or suspected the had AIDS in 86. It's called CORROBERATION. -Why Freddie lived five years far from Mary (New York and Munich) and live six years with Jim? Mary was in New York and Munich very often, But Mary had Her own life and relationships. Jim lived with Freddie as a gardner, (and many other menial tasks) just as Joe lived with Freddie as the cook, (and many other menial tasks), just as Phoebe switched jobs with Joe at the end as cook, and Joe primary caregiver. - Freddie likely used Winnie to make Jim jealous. That's what Jim and everyone around them at the time has said. - If Winnie was more important to Freddie than Jim why he was not with Winnie then. He WAS with Winnie. But Im not saying Winnie is MORE important, just that Jim was LESS important than he makes himself out to be. Freddie broke up with Winnie because it was a tempestuous, toxic, passionate relationship (he also called Winnie "My Husband). And also Freddie was moving back to England after his "tax exile", and Win is was not interested in moving to England. When Queen finished recording their album in Munich, and Queen started their "Magic" tour, THAT is when Freddie took off Winnie's wedding ring. - If Freddie didn't want Jim's ring he wouldn't wore it. Not necessarily. It was important for Freddie and for the sake of Queen... Then we're in the process of renegotiating their contract with EMI and publishing rights. People were losing their recording contracts because an ignorant, homophobic society was blaming AIDS patients for their own illness, saying they deserved it because they were permiscuious. Secondly, by this time, Freddie had CONFIRMED he had AIDS and he would've felt obligation for likely exposing Jim to *his* strain of the virus. (Although Jim could've been carrying his own strain The medical community didn't really know much about HIV superinfection [also called HIV reinfection] - a condition in which a person with an established human immunodeficiency virus infection acquires a second strain of HIV, often of a different subtype) - Jim was with Freddie in Japan. Does the employer guide his barbers and gardeners to such a trip? Yes, He brought Joe as well. Especially if Phoebe or Mary couldn't go, Jim might be needed for other menial tasks. They all had "primary" jobs, but switch off on tasks when needed. - I don't intend to argue and respond to your every post. Of course not. That would require you either, admit you're not correct or, post ANY evidence to support your own POV. Too much to expect from Jimercury-monomaniacs. -Maybe photos doesn't so good but we can see that they wear rings. It's obvious that Jim's ring is different than ring of photos from Japan. No, not obvious at all. Besides. What difference does it make? Jim BOUGHT THE RING FOR HIMSELF. Freddie was infamous for picking out special gifts for those he loved... yet he couldn't be bothered to pick out a supposed wedding band??? Not say to Jim "Dont worry, we'll pick out a special wedding band for you? Jim had given Freddie a ring in September 86, which Freddie didn't want to wear out in public FOR A YEAR. When Jim's birthday came, he didnt choose to give Jim a ring in return. He wanted to get him a bracelet. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 22:32 |
Indy 19 Hi Freddiedearie: Hmm. I certainly don't want to do much more in this, uhh, "debate" than point out two things: If you are using rhetorical questions to posit or insinuate X, and in effect challenging my posit.... you're debating me, even when you'rr trying to couch it as "just a question" 2) Freddie stayed married to Winnie and continued to wear Winnie's ring over a year after Jim and Freddie hooked up. (May 12, 1986) -- I thought there was no "civil union/marriage" at the time, so what's with the "married to Winnie" bit? Semantics. Call it committed relationship, marriage , civil union whatever. Gay men wore wedding bands on their RH ring finger to signal to others who were aware of gay signaling at the time. 5) Jim had to coax Freddie into wearing Jims ring. Where's this "factoid" from? I admit I'm not up on the "Freddie's lovers" lore, so someone point me to it, please? Jim's book. According to him, for about a year Freddie would take off Jim's ring in public even though he had openly wore WINNIE'S ring in public for abt 2 years. .... --My takeaway from these posts though is that you seem to be way more inclined to like Winnie the abuser and hate Jim the caretaker. What gives? 1) Thats an intellectually dishonest debate tactic and logical fallacy. Rejecting facts or logic as "mere" opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent. Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact. Like it or not Freddie was still wearing Winnie Kirschberger's wedding ring through Mid-May 1986. A YEAR after Jim and Freddie first hooked up as an attempt to make Winnie jealous. If your take away is that I support Winifred and Freddie's toxic relationship any more than I support Jim and Freddie's toxic "relationship", then you're not paying attention. I'm way more inclined to point out facts, wherever the truth may lead. My wishing Freddie wasn't in that toxic relationship doesn't make it disappear. For the record Jim was not Freddie's caretaker. Only Phoebe and Joe did. [I](And Jim admits to this in a 2006 interview with respected, award winning journalist from "The Times"-- Jim also admits to cheating on Freddie "a little" in that interview, FYI)[/I] in In the last week of Freddies life Jim split his time sleeping at home,( he snored too much Freddie didn't like him in the room) or getting his rocks off at the Notting Hill BDSM as fetish private club called "The Gate Club". (No it was not a bar like Jim tried to pretend). |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 22:34 |
Invisible Woman" I think it's not the same ring, but let everyone see what thinks that see. Someone is wrong and someone is right. I certainly will not argue about it. Bye,bye. " Doesn't matter anyway. Jim had to buy his own wedding ring because Freddie wasn't interested in doing so. Bye bye |
| indy19 27.03.2019 22:40 |
So, umm, Freddiedearie, are you an insider or not? |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 22:59 |
Holligan- "I know who you are on instagram. You have taken your precious time on earth and decided to make several accounts dedicated to hating Jim- a man Freddie loved. " Really not interested in addressing your paranoia. Imdobt hate Jim, Im simply aware of many discrepancies in his book and have concluded Imwill only taken it with a grain of salt. "This is some sort of mental illness and it isn't normal. You can ran all you want, but no one is going to change their mind. " You're need to engage in adhominem only reveals you don't have he facts or logic to defend your POV. "Jim wrote a book, and what he said was backed up by everyone that knew Freddie. No it has NOT been backed up by everyone that knew Freddie "You don't take your gardener to Japan. Why would he lie? Freddie had a series of boyfriends and Jim was the one he was with the longest. " Yes Freddie did. Mary, Joe, Jim and Phoebe had primary jobs but they often switch off on menial tasks when needed. "Mary worked for Freddie too. She also gave several paid interviews. " 1) Mary ran Freddie's multi-million dollar business. She ran Garden Lodge. She was in charge of Freddie's employees. Sunday Magazine, May, 1985: "Of coures my parents are in my will and so are my cats, but the vast bulk of it will go to Mary. If I dropped down dead tomorrow, Mary's the one person I know who could cope with my vast wealth. She works in my organisation and looks after my money side and all my possessions. She's in charge of the chauffeurs, maids, gardeners, accountants and lawyers. All I have to do is throw my carcass around on stage." Freddie is one of the world's richest rock stars but he never has a penny in his pocket and has no idea of how many millions he owns." Because Mary handled it all for him. 2) You've never proven she paid for any interview. But, regardless, she never told the world LURID details like Jim did. It's not THAT Jim wrote the book, it's WHAT he put in the book, betraying Freddies privacy and wishes while Freddie's parents were still alive. --When I brought this up with one of your Jim hating cohorts on instagram, she called me a "gutter whore" " Whoever called you a "gutter whore" has nothing to do with me. -So take your hate elsewhere. Freddie loved Jim. You are not a fan if you spend your time hating a man he trusted and loved. Don't hate Jim. Just don't respect or believe him. Freddie didn't even entrust Jim With his cremains. LOL!!!! He didn't even trust him with KNOWLEDGE of the location of his resting place!!! You're not a true Freddie fan if you insist on over-romanticizing someone who lied about and betrayed Freddie so horribly. |
| FreddieDearie 27.03.2019 23:08 |
Indy 19, Point is you don't and can't know. So umm. Indy 19,. Are you capable of defending your own ideas, assertions or POV without resorting to ad hominem , or engaging in the dishonest tactic of questioning my motives?: If my facts or logic are wrong, just point exactly what the error is. If you're even capable. You obliquely pointing my supposed suspicious motives is basically admitting you've found no error; it’s just an attempt to *insinuate* an error by innuendo. Don’t say why I’m wrong; say where I’m wrong. IF you're interested in honest discussion. |
| Invisible Woman 28.03.2019 09:02 |
@ FreddieDearie I know I said I would not discuss this any more, but I have to say this. It's not true that Freddie didn't want to wear Jim's ring for a year since September 1986. See photos from the Ivor Novello awards 1987. See video interview with Montserrat and their performing Barcelona in Ku Club. And these photos from Japan? I guess there are no rings on them? You constantly repeat the same over and over and when someone asks you something, you answer only partially and repeat the same thing again. What you present as a fact is just your view about it. You say "he was with Winnie". Yes, but when? I didn't ask you that. Answer to my question in whole if you want. This is all from me in this topic. You will continue to put "facts". I don't mind. |
| Vocal harmony 28.03.2019 09:25 |
A few questions. . . What's so important about what jewellery Freddie wore What's so important about who bought what and why What is the need to attach a particular reason for him having a ring Why are certain people acting like they know the definitive facts as though they were there. |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 28.03.2019 16:06 |
Invisible woman: This dearie person is mentally ill. They constantly spread misinformation about Jim all over social media. It's not normal and Freddie would certainly not like it. |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 28.03.2019 16:08 |
Indy: FreddieDearie is NOT an insider. She's a paranoid, mentally ill Jim hater from instagram. Mary was not in New York and Munich often. People on this forum WHO WERE ACTUALLY IN New York with Freddie said she wasn't. Stop making things up because you're so jealous of Jim. Why the fuck would Freddie take his gardener to Japan? Why can't you accept they were lovers? Jealousy is not a good look on you, sweetie. |
| Galileo1564 29.03.2019 01:42 |
FreddieDearie cut and pasted that bit about HIV superinfection from wikipedia. In case anyone cares. What it has to do with the subject at hand, I don’t know. Vocal Harmony—Good questions. I would think that Freddie saying that he is very happy in his relationship and couldn’t ask for better means more than all this unverifiable stuff about rings. And I promised myself I wouldn’t post in troll threads, but I have no self control. |
| indy19 29.03.2019 07:57 |
I told you at the outset that I do not want to debate this with you. All I want to know is if you are an insider. If you're not, then you need to shut the fuck up because you have NO INSIDE KNOWLEDGE BUT YOU'RE PRETENDING YOU DO WHILE SLANDERING A MAN WHO LOVED FRED.
So either provide proof that you knew Freddie, or GTFO.
FreddieDearie wrote: Indy 19, Point is you don't and can't know. So umm. Indy 19,. Are you capable of defending your own ideas, assertions or POV without resorting to ad hominem , or engaging in the dishonest tactic of questioning my motives?: If my facts or logic are wrong, just point exactly what the error is. If you're even capable. You obliquely pointing my supposed suspicious motives is basically admitting you've found no error; it’s just an attempt to *insinuate* an error by innuendo. Don’t say why I’m wrong; say where I’m wrong. IF you're interested in honest discussion. |
| spiralstatic 30.03.2019 08:20 |
I am in agreement that Freddie would not have wanted Jim to write the things he did in Mercury and Me. I feel pretty sure Freddie would have felt it a betrayal - not that Jim wrote a book, but that he revealed such intimate details about Freddie. And I don't feel Freddie was the kind of person to take something he felt betrayed his trust with just an "oh well" attitude... However, I can't understand why anyone would want to try to prove Jim was less important to Freddie. What Jim and Freddie meant to each other is something deeply personal and is something that we can never know and the only evidence to prove it is from Freddie and Jim and their friends and those who knew them - from them speaking what they felt and from people seeing how they were with each other. Personally I HOPE Jim was the most important and satisfying love in Freddie's life ...I mean I don't know if more special is the right word. I hope everyone he loved in their time was special to him and he was special to them. But I hope Jim provided a new and deeper experience of love and contentment for Freddie than he had known before. I hope Freddie found peace in his relationship with Jim. And I hope he found happiness and that they both felt loved. Of course Jim was not perfect, just as no-one is, Freddie included. I think the trouble with these kinds of discussions is people often feel some thing a person was or did was wrong - be it an action or a trait of their personality and eventually extrapolate that to the person being a bad person (it happens on the flip side with Mary too.) The truth is Jim could be a loving, caring partner who loved Freddie deeply (and my impression of him is he was maybe good for Freddie in a very different sense - in that he also took no nonsense from Freddie and was able to be truly oblivious to Freddie's stardom which I am sure is easier written than done!) AND he could do things that were wrong and had negative personality traits too. In the end, we don't love people because they are perfect. I love Jim because I hope he provided a new and deep experience of love for Freddie. At the same time, I think some of the things he wrote in Mercury and Me he should not have myself (not only the intimate details he revealed, but I'm sure he was still grieving when he wrote the book and it may have helped to have waited for other reasons too.) I think it was wrong and a betrayal of Freddie's trust to write those things and I can't be convinced otherwise. And it is hard for me to reflect on the idea that Jim could love Freddie so, yet release a book including things he must have known Freddie would never want in the public eye? I just wonder what Jim was thinking? Did he think Freddie was dead so he wouldn't care? And I am under no illusion Freddie and Jim's relationship was absolute bliss. That's not realistic to envision. All that matters is that they loved each other and I can't imagine why anyone would want to reduce this? I mean, had Freddie lived, would Jim have been *the one*? Who can say. In truth, maybe Freddie wouldn't have settled down with anyone at that point in time. But you can never know the full truth of what did happen, quite before wildly speculating on what might have been. |
| doughnut 30.03.2019 14:54 |
omg this thread has been madness. Unless any of us actually knew Freddie or Jim we cannot begin to speculate in depth information about their relationship and not one of us can 100% say if what was in Jim's book is 100% accurate or not, however, seeing as it was Jim's story of HIS lie with Freddie I would tend to believe was what written. I don't understand why some people have so much hate for Jim, it's scary. The poor guy has been dead since 2010 and isn't around to defend himself. All i will say on the subject is that it is fairly clear to me that Jim was thought of fondly by the others guys in the band and by Freddie's friends. I just had to do a bit of digging to find this out plus Brian wrote some lovely words on his soap box page about Jim when Jim passed away. Brian also confirmed in a TV interview one week after Freddie's death that he had been in a loving and stable relationship as well as confirming that he had been cared for by three guys in garden lodge. At the time he said this information needs to get out there somehow but it wasn't his place. Regarding Winnie, it is true that he flaunted Jim in front of Winnie in Munich to make Winnie jealous and clearly messed both men around for a while however seeing as Freddie couldn't speak German and Winnie couldn'y speak English it couldn't have been that deep . Peter Fresstone said basically he gave Freddie good sex although Freddie wasn't faithful to Winnie even before Jim came along. Freddie had a screwed up mentality that it was ok for him to mess around but not for his current lover of the time. It is also true that Freddie wore the ring that Winnie gave him well into the first part of 1986. By the magic tour you will notice that it is gone. Freddie seemed to have settled down with Jim by this point and they were both in a good place as confirmed by Terry Gittins ,Freddies driver and bodyguard. Terry confirmed that he felt they did love each other and the trip to Japan was their time together to do what they wanted. Freddie wrote a letter to the fan club after the holiday saying what a fab time he'd had . I wouldn't even begin to speculate that Freddie knew he had HIV prior to 1987. I tend to go with the information provided by those who knew Freddie and that was he was diagnosed in 1987. The solo collection released came with information which also backs up 1987. There are more people who back up the diagnosis in 1987 then mary's specualtion . Also the band have never said Freddie had been diagnosed prior to 1987. Hindsight after an event is a wonderful thing . I have seen an interview where Roger says that he felt Freddie felt that he may not be well enough to tour again. I imagine this is because he had thoughts towards the end of 1986 that he could have HIV seeing as friends had died from it and were ill from it. Tony Bastin a former BF died in 1986 and that must have been a rude awaking. By this point in the 80's information was beginning to come through which i'm sure he would off been more than aware of. The bottom line is that only Freddie really knew how he felt . The news report about him in 1986 said the test had come back negative , that's if he did have a test, we will never know unless his medical records become available. Tests were not reliable back around this time and lots of people didn't want to know as it was a death sentence. I'm guessing Freddie fitted into this catagory and didn't want to know. Lets all stop the silliness and enjoy Freddie and queen for the fantastice people and Band they were/are. |
| doughnut 30.03.2019 15:11 |
I forgot to add then when Mercury & Me was released onto Kindle in 2013, Brian May promoted it on his soapbox webpage. That leaves me feeling he doesn't discredit the contents. It was also backed by Jacky Gunn of the Queen Fan Club |
| doughnut 30.03.2019 15:33 |
me again... i keep remembering things I forgot to say. After being intrigued by Freddie Mercury it lead me to wanting to find out about him. I tend to stick with trusted sources and interviews by people who knew him. What I take from this information is that Freddie was a strong willed man. If Freddie didn't want to wear the ring that Jim gave to him for his 40th birthday, I don't think he would have. . I don't believe that any amount of so called bullying or persuasion would have got him to wear the ring if he didn't want to. I also found this after digging around. Lay and lesbian marriage Instead of wearing wedding bands on the left hands, gay and lesbian couples often choose to wear rings on their right hands instead. Within the gay community, the right handed ring is an instantly recognizable marker of a monogamous relationship , and even marrige within the states that have legalized it. Obviously Freddie wasn't monogamous whilst wearing Winnie's ring but it apears to all intents that he was when he wore Jims. Peter confirmed that he wore the ring almost all of the time and he was wearing it when he was cremated. As you said, Jim did also place a Teddy with him when he left the house. |
